i for one have played America's Army for years, and i would love to play in the vehicles and huge screens with other ppl! sure its a recruitment tool but take it for what it is, a great team-based shooter.

This is America. What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest? Only terrorists do that. Now bow down before our magnificent leader. You must go and die for his glory.

Then the army oughtn't be able to open a center there. Frankly, this whole "hide behind public property" that the government uses is wrong. It is basically circumventing the first amendment by using technicalities. Whether you or I agree with the protest, citizens should be free to peacefully protest their government.

They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing. I know, why don't I come over to your house and protest your stupidity by taking over you living room. After all, you should not be able to hide behind public property either.

Who owns the property. Not the gov't. The property owner. If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. If the property owner doesn't like the protests, he can try to boot his tenant and the protesters out. The gov't can't boot out citizens.

Different rules apply. This is why we don't like to conflate government and private enterprise. Gets messy.

We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

The mall has the right to evict anyone, at the choosing of the mall owner or their delegated authority such as security guards, from the property.

What is so hard to understand about this? The mall chose to remove a bunch of lunatics from their property. The lunatics refused to go, so police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

Stop trying to make this more than it is. A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place). So they go, do something stupid, refuse to obey a lawful order by the property owner to leave, and get their stupid asses arrested.

The gov't can't boot out citizens.

Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute; the Supreme Court has routinely held that reasonable restrictions - such as requirements to get a permit, to adequately prepare for possible problems, and to disperse when ordered to by police - are completely enforceable.

If you go out of your way to get arrested, you're gonna get arrested. It's really that simple.

We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

They follow the rules same as everybody else. What breeds contempt for the gov't is fuckers who pull "protests" like this and have no grasp on reality.

(the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place).

You're either a fucking imbecile or a liar. There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes. To think that the protesters can't tell the difference is ridiculous.

A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today

But this makes it obvious, you're a liar. You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.

I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.

The mall has the right to evict anyone... What is so hard to understand about this?... police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

Isn't that convenient. The only relevant place to protest and it's private property. But how about outside? Oh, the whole area near the entryway is private, the sidewalk can't be blocked by groups, and the nearby park is private too. Guess there just can't be a protest because everywhere is private...

Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute

The courts, supreme or otherwise, are far from unbiased on this, being the ultimate 'tool' of 'justice' in the land they have far to much faith in quietly following the rules and protesting inside the lines. Sorry, but their opinion is just as irrelevant as that of the most radicalized protester.

The truth is that protest MUST be done where it is relevant and will be seen. A public park six miles away might be more convenient for mall management but they rented space to a government propaganda centre and can't simply dismiss this issue as one of troublesome trespassers or they themselves become a legitimate target for protest. Removing protesters for violence, preventing other legitimate access through the area, and so forth would be reasonable, yes. But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.

It's fairly well established that the government has the right of eminent domain, and the current US gov claims it has the right to draft its citizens. To think that this doesn't afford the people (the government) the reasonable expectation of a right to assemble and protest the activities going on in that location is silly. The USA seceded, in part after people boarded private ships to throw privately owned tea into the harbour as part of a tax protest against the government. Considering the issue at hand is pro-war brainwashing materials being passed off as games by the government I think a mere protest in a mall is a pretty reasonable thing.

Perhaps the mall should rent to less controversial customers if it doesn't want the fallout.

According to you, the government has no right to rent space anywhere. That's bullshit.

If the government rents space somewhere, the space around its entrance should become available to protesters, same as if the government owned it.

If the owner of the mall doesn't want to allow protestrs to gather in front of spaces he's leased to the government, then he can elect not to lease space to the government.

The alternative is absurd. The government can simply sell all its property to private management companies, and then lease it back from them, and suddenly you can't even protest on the street... its the property of the LRX Holding Company... and the government is just leasing it... they'd be happy to let you protest on it, -but- LRX is the owner you see... so they call the shots. We'd like to help... but... LRX is calling the shots... sorry.

If the owner of the mall doesn't want to allow protestrs to gather in front of spaces he's leased to the government, then he can elect not to lease space to the government.

If a small group of asswad shithead anarchists want to kick the gov't out of any rented space, all they have to do is show up, block the entrance, and the "option" for the property owner is not to kick out the shithead anarchists, but instead to kick out the government employees who are actually doing their jobs?

I don't have to have "mindless obedience to authority" to have a dislike of people whose response to getting a traffic ticket, or being told that they need to prove their ability to safely handle a vehicle before we'll let them control 2 tons of steel at 75 MPH, is to shout "burn the government."

They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing.

No they were not, because they asked for, and were given, permission to continue their protest on the private property. The moment they failed to leave the private property when told to do so they were traspassing.

I'm all for using games as a means of sparking young men and women's interest in joining the armed forces. It's a great way to show them what to expect without actually sending them overseas. The only condition I ask is that a representative number of gamers get shot in the gut with an AK-47.

Of course you have to be careful, when a person commits a crime when surrounded by people protesting, only that person committed a crime, the rest of the protesters are guilty of nothing and should not be subject to arrest as they are expressing their constitutional rights. As has happened in the past, only a very small minority of of agents provocateur have actually done any damage and the police have then basically lied and pressed false charges against innocent protesters, only to have to drop those charges when video evidence refutes their statements.

Peace protesting should always take place where appropriate. When a country is the dominant supplier of weapons, then obviously the protest should take place there, when a country funds the war effort obviously the protest should take place there, where a country is largely responsible for the war via it's intelligence operations obviously the protest should occur there.

Only a thoughtless person would consider it appropriate to peace protectors to protest in a combat zone, of course then the same thoughtless idiot would accuse the people being attacked of using the peace protesters as human shields and, demand even more violent actions be taken.

Wanna bet the "protesters" were doing more than just standing there with placards ?

Wanna bet that you didn't RTFA [gamepolitics.com]? The protesters were described as peaceful as can be, with the average age being over 40. Their list of offenses? They made some speeches and marched to the entrance of the AEC. Essentially, they were considered trespassing.

You don't get, as a protestor, to deny anyone access anywhere.

Which they didn't do.

You don't get to damage cars, or any other type of private property and, of course, a protest takes responsability for all protestors.

Which they didn't do.

If the police thinks the group is damaging property or denying people access to a location, they do not only have the right to end the protest, they have the duty to do so.

Again, they didn't do any of those. The police arrested them for trespassing, and I don't blame them for that. The police were only doing their job. But I don't see the point in your post, when you're basing it off of assumptions and won't even bother to read any of the links posted in the summary.

Besides, peace protesting in the united states is a farce. Someone who hides in a territory that's defended by the biggest guns on the planet is not a peace protestor. A real "peace protestor" would demonstrate in a lawless region without police forces present. You know, like Southern Darfur. You don't see many peace protests there, of course, for good reason. It doesn't make peace protests in America any less hypocrite.

How the fuck did this get modded insightful? Why would peace protesting be hypocritical in the U.S. ? One of the definitions of hypocrisy [reference.com] is:

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

How are peace protesters, in this case, practicing beliefs that they do not hold? It would be hypocritical of them if they were protesting war, and at the same time, donating money to weapons manufacturers. One of the freedoms afforded to us is the freedom of assembly. It would be a damn shame for us to HAVE such freedom and not exercise it.

The government is leasing some space in the mall so now they own the mall.

No but I would gather there's one of those "Management reserves the right to refuse admission" signs hanging on or near all the doors into the mall. If you are asked to leave the mall and refuse, don't complain when you get busted for trespassing. This has nothing to do with government. A protest against "Banana Republic" would yield the same result. Oh, the parking is mall property too. You're welcome to go wave your signs on the public street though, so long as you have a permit from the municipality.

There are laws for dealing with obstruction of traffic and disturbing the peace; but that's something to be done/after/ they begin to cause a problem. Prior restraint is tantamount to censorship, and requiring 'permission' to speak your mind is exactly that. Not all protests turn ugly - and I, for one, don't care to ask any man's permission before I say my piece.

Perhaps there is a tradeoff between liberty and safety, but I choose liberty every time.

A lot of protesters really want to get arrested or teargassed or whatever. Because they are not fully protesting any particular issue but feel the government is corrupt and if they get hurt somehow it makes the government look bad, and them look good.

I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.

I don't have a problem with people protesting, and it should be legal. However a lot of protesters are really Stupid and do it the wrong way.

Here are some Stupid Protests I have seen.

A Silent protest on something... (I don't know what it was about because they wouldn't tell me)

A huge Anti-War (I think) protest in the state capital. I saw a lot of people protesting, however I was busy setting up new computers for the Government Higher Ups (who can actually make some fuss) on the 19th and 20th floor. While most of the people up there were focusing on their work. No one could be heard, and if you did look down and see all the people even their biggest signs looked like smudges.

Protesters in groups less then 15. Small groups are not really effective and can easily be seen as just a fringe group who just hates everything.

Playing folk music. I am a fan of folk music myself, however for protests it is way to corny.

Personal attacks, Are you willing to open a fair dialog with someone caring a poster of you looking like the devil or Hitler?

I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.

Or she planned a restrained protest but was worried that there might be hotheads other than her on the protest who might cross that line. Or she was worried that there might be hotheads policing the protest for whom the very act of the protest is enough provocation to shoot the protestors. Or that some hothead in the general public might be so offended by the protest that they'd open fire. Or the protest just happened to be in the sort of neighbourhood one wears a bulletproof vest to. Or... and so on.

What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest?

As with most malls, the Franklin Mills Mall, where the U.S. Army Experience Center is located, is private property. This means that if the owner wants you gone and you stay anyway, you're trespassing, which means you're subject to arrest.

Actually, from actually reading the twitter log, it seems like the police were very reasonable, allowing the protesters to march all the way down to and into the mall, where they protested for some time. Eventually, a police captain told them they'd have to leave. When they didn't, a few people got arrested. I suspect the order to leave was at the behest of the mall management, since there are numerous other stores there which depend on having an orderly environment in order to conduct business.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't peaceably assemble on private property when the owner doesn't want you there. Simple as that.

I found it ironic that as a service member, I had less freedoms available to me. The freedom of speech, needing to ask for permission to get married, etc. Throw in the the base clubs weren't allowed to have "offensive" music (and of course the sensitive types wouldn't have the decency to stay home)./sigh. Buy all the liquor, tobacco and bibles you want, but no porn!

I found it ironic that as a service member, I had less freedoms available to me. The freedom of speech, needing to ask for permission to get married, etc. Throw in the the base clubs weren't allowed to have "offensive" music (and of course the sensitive types wouldn't have the decency to stay home)./sigh. Buy all the liquor, tobacco and bibles you want, but no porn!

You don't need permission to get married, unless you are planning on marrying a foreigner while you are stationed in a foreign country.

If you are stateside, you don't need permission to get married, and you ALWAYS get BAH and BAS (about $2000 a month, depending on rank, cost of living for the locale, etc.)

Overseas is a different deal because space is limited and CI/force protection become issues. But if you are married and your wife stays in the US while you go to Korea, or any other analogous situation where you are separated, you still get the monthly BAH payment to buy an apartment/housing/food/etc.

After watching the video, that "Army Experience" store, set up in a mall, strikes me as a little twisted. It seems pretty clear this place was set up to resemble a video game center to "lure" high school kids to it so recruiters would have an opportunity to talk to them about joining the Army. I'm not very comfortable having my government treating its kids this way.

I have a nephew who was a Ham radio operator with his Amateur Extra Class, as well as an avid hiker and outdoorsman. He had no plans to go to college right away. He made the mistake of talking to a Marine Recruiter, and they slotted him right away into a particular class of recruit they were looking for. It was like being stalked by Big Brother. They showed up places he hung out at, talked to people he knew, they even started calling him on his cell phone which he never gives out to anyone.

It was stupid, because they actually had a chance of getting him to sign up if they hadn't pulled the Big Brother baloney on him. That freaked him out.

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?

As far as your cousin is concerned, sorry. Maybe he'll smarten up eventually, but it'll probably have to wait until he finds out there's more to life than beer, bullets and bitches. I'd take more issue with the military academy high school than the US military, though. If he doesn't know about LOAC and the Geneva Convention, he may be in for a bit of surprise.

Hopefully he's not so far gone that he doesn't think that, unlike movie bad guys, his opponents can actually think or aim...

A US veteran recalls his commander telling him to machine-gun a group of about 50 refugees. "I said, 'we can't kill all these people,' and he pulled out his handgun, a.45, and pointed it at my head, he said, 'Kill 'em, you're directly disobeying a direct order in combat'."

And your source for this is three commercial t-shirt sites, sites with no actual ties to the army?

They look crafted to sell to military wanna-bes. I'm not going to say that NO military member wears those shirts, because the military IS drawn from the population, and there's over a million in uniform between all the services, and you do have the occasional gung-ho type.

Thing is, the Army only wants you to be so gung ho, and a few who wear those shirts do it as a sort of exageration of their position, or to 'look tough'.

If the Academy had him chanting 'kill 'em all', then there's a serious problem with the academy. Especially today, the army wants a very discriminating killer.

No highschool graduate is going to know exactly what they're getting into when they join the army, but then, they aren't going to know what they're getting into with college or anything else. Still, joining the army, the recruit is generally going to know(if they paid attention), these important items:1. You may be called upon to kill somebody2. You may come under fire and even be killed3. The standard contract is for 8 years, of which your 'active' commitment may vary. All bets are off during wartime/combat operations.4. You will serve the needs of the Military, within the terms of the contract. You may get your preferred career field, assuming you pass the training, but that doesn't mean they can't cross train you later to a different field

In return:1. Average to sucky pay compared to your civilian equivalent2. Free training3. Free medical care, if with the occasional bureaucratic nightmare or incompetent doctor4. Tax advantaged income5. Retirement eligible, with pay and benefits, after only 20 years

The game center is an excuse to get people in to see the recruiters. That doesn't mean that the recruiters are stuffing them into burlap sacks and shipping them to boot camp. They still have to cross all the ts in regards to paperwork, contracts, eligibility, ASVAB results, etc...

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

I assure you the violence makes a lot of sense. You just aren't trying to understand. Making a civil society in Iraq is not the US Army's goal. The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

By all means let him join assuming they'll have him. The disease is the cure when it comes to militarism. My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily.

"My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily."

Not sure about the Army, but based on my time in the Marine Corps, militarism was encouraged. "One shot, one kill", the fact that ever Marine (in theory) can shoot a rifle and shoot it well whether they're a cook or a grunt, the good old "Napalm sticks to kids" running cadence... although that starts to cross the line into good old-fashioned violence.

If you've watched the first half of Full Metal Jacket, that's pretty close to the USMC Boot Camp experience that I remember. They want killers who don't get remorseful.

Yes, but any situation that requires marines requires violence. You don't send the marines on peacekeeping missions. You send them places any sane person would run away from. We want the marines crazy. It's what they are for.

Firethorn is correct. I don't believe that it is militarism merely wanting to be a competent soldier, even including the bit about remorseless killing in the line of duty. The original poster mentioned a cousin who sounded like he had a real chip on his shoulder and really idolized/fantasized about the military and getting into elite units of the military. I doubt that attitude would survive boot camp. It's possible that he'd be a lousy, unhappy soldier after that, I don't know the odds.

The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

I'm not going to argue that you are incorrect on the army's goal. But the means to get there (headshot) probably works a lot better in our culture (western) than in one where blood feudes [wikipedia.org] are a cultural norm.

See, A kills B. Now B's family has to go a kill either A or someone from A's family. So now someone from A's family has to go kill someone from B's family. Re

You could certainly call it "wrong;" I don't see how you can call it "twisted", however, as far from being deviant, the glorification of deadly combat has been a historical norm.

Even today, King Arthur and the Knights of Round Table, or The Three Musketeers, are still instilled as childhood heroes. And gaining glory and honor through deadly combat is pretty much their entire theme.

Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization.

I think the violence in "Smash Bros." is rather more senseless than the violence in "America's Army."

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

The army does not use "senseless violence". They are very clear on the importance of shooting only the bad guys, and Iraq demonstrates that they have a good success rate at doing so, at least compared to the whole rest of the history of war.

Your argument is a straw man, and not even a clever one.

Incidentally, one of the basic principles of civilization is "Keep a lot of violence ready for when the barbarians attack." Any civilization that fails to do so will end soon after. Don't let the current Pax Americana, the product of the West's skill with violence, lead you to believe that barbarians aren't still knocking at the gate.

Sorry to be a little harsh here, but any kid stupid enough to sign up for the military based solely on some videogames he played in a recruiting center and the bullshit spiel of a recruiting officer is probably no big loss anyway. There are plenty of people who actually do join the military for good reasons (there are some serious advantages to military service), but morons who stumble into a recruitment center and sign up after being enthralled by some videogames are most definitely not among them.

It's good that you understand how to use Wikipedia to find a reference to give credence to someone else's post, was that what you were going for? Because arrests are often illegal... Not saying that these were, but you don't know they aren't.

I have played AA for 6 years it's a great game, on the flip side I served as Infantry for 12 years. The AA game simulates the battle side of the army but nothing about the other phases (book training, guard duty, and cleaning the base) AA tends to glorify the battle side. I entered in 1989 and served till 2001 (medical discharge) I volunteer to go anywhere I could, but was never deployed outside the US. while the war training was fun it wasn't a common ordeal during my service time. on a final note http://www.pvtmurphy.com/Prints/Any%20Luck.htm [pvtmurphy.com]

In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.

One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.

Well, to defend our glorious military (which I opted out of the non-easy way, by becoming a CO), there probably isn't much blood involved in conscripted Norwegian military service. No conscript is shipped abroad, even on the most sleepy peacekeeping mission, without applying for it himself.

It was the same in our country (Slovenia), until too many people realized how stupid war is. Eventually too many treated the army as a joke forcing the state to employ soldiers as professional.
Now we have very few soldiers, but they are all motivated professionals. Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire.
P.S: We do not have a military court, all soldiers mistakes are judged by the civil court.

Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire.

It will lower standards a little, but not nearly as much as instituting a draft. The problem the US military faces right now is that the ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan require a lot of bodies. Not because many of them die, but because it's unpleasant duty and people tend not to want to do it for very long. Since it's an all-volunteer military force, recruiters to do whatever they can to motivate people to volunteer.

The real solution here isn't to shut down the recruiters, it's to reduce the demands on the military, i.e. get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, I think we should return to the Constitutional form of national defense. Get rid of the "standing army" almost entirely. Limit the armed forces to the high-tech forces that can't be staffed on a volunteer basis plus a training cadre capable of quickly training and equipping large numbers of volunteers for the bulk of the ground forces. Shift most of those forces to the state national guards (organized militia). All we really need at the federal level during peacetime is the Navy and maybe a core staff to coordinate the training and equipping of national guard forces to maintain consistency and standards. Finally, repeal the NFA and encourage citizens to own and practice with military-style weapons in standard caliber to maintain/rebuild the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense (unorganized militia). But I realize that following the Constitution is a radical idea.

One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion

So how often is Norway invaded that that video is not a fully accurate depiction of what they should expect?

"Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits...

It looks like they meant anti-war ralliers or war protesters, not anti-war protesters. The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.

Once again, someone fails to understand the associativity rules in English. The hyphen means that 'anti-war' is a compound adjective being applied to 'protesters,' i.e they are protesters with the 'anti-war' attribute; people who are protesting and are against war. If they were anti war-protesters, they would be people who were against war protesters.

The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.

Anyone who played an online multiplayer shooter will attest that the experience is very close to real life war. The fresh young recruit steps onto the battlefield, expecting a grand battle the likes of the opening of Saving Private Ryan, only to end up in the scope of a spawn point camping sniper who is only farming headshots on the newbies...

On one hand, I have great respect for the military and the sacrifices soldiers are willing to make to protect their fellow citizens, whether fighting somewhere else in the world to preserve democracy (yes, I really believe that's what they are doing, historically and now) or serving at home during disaster relief, helping their fellow citizens directly.

On the other hand war is something to be abhorred and avoided. It's always a last resort. Soldiers are a precious resource that we (as the people ultimatel

The military is enjoying a recruiting boom thanks to the poor economy. Enlistment bonuses are getting cut and the military is getting much more selective in whom they accept. This year in particular is a recruiter's wet dream.

Okay. Films like FMJ, that (rightfully or not) demonize military culture, are okay. But a video game depicting a limited facet of the military experience is horrible evil propaganda?

FMJ does not "demonize" - it is simply realistic. It doesn't glorify either, though..."A" video game may or may not be propaganda but "THE" game (America's Army) sure is. But is it "evil" and "demonizing"? Well...

I guess it is exactly the case as with you and FMJ.Depending on which side of the fence you are - both are either "depicting a limited facet of the military experience" or "being evil propaganda tools".

Personally, I find that game to be simply boring.Its work vs fun ratio is really bad, plus you on

Inside one of those centers, a youngster playing for ages, along comes a recruiter.

Recruiter: Hi there, I see you're pretty good.Young person: Yeah. Bob, can ya snipe that asshole shooting at me?Recruiter: Well, I'm pretty sure you'd be a great soldier yourself.YP: Maybe. I see him, in the bushes there! Don't aim, rattle down a belt, dammit!Recruiter: Maybe you should consider joining the army.YP: Whatever. Fuck! We're under fire, get over to the bushes and call in some arti!Recruiter: You can enlist right

Military recruiting has never been about truth in advertising. When I recruited for the USAF ('93-'97, 368 RCS OL-FD Reno, NV), I hung the front page of the European Stars and Stripes printed on the first day of the first Gulf War on the front wall of my office, the first thing a visitor saw when they came through the front door. It was a night-vision picture of an F-15E Strike Eagle, fully loaded with death and destruction, refueling from a KC-135 aerial tanker with WAR in a 3-inch bold font above the ph

I know it is hard for you to understand, but it is possible for people to believe Bush did not do enough and did too little at the same time. For example, I believe security at our ports is abysmal. If someone wanted to sneak a nuke into the country, they could through our port system. Bush did not do enough to secure those. On the other hand, he went completely overboard when he had people waterboarded. We have executed people for doing the same thing to our soldiers.

You are saying it is possible to believe in A ("did not do enough") and again in A ("did too little") simultaneously?

No, the GP is saying it is possible to believe that A "did not do enough X" and that A "did too little Y" simultaneously. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension and be a little less insulting to people.

Maybe they figure it's safe to protest again, and won't be waterboarded now that Bush is out of office?

Seriously, this is a non-story. A bunch of people make a protest (good for them, right of free speech) and then block the entrances after being asked to move (preventing expression of other people's rights) and get arrested. So what?

If there is a story here, it's whether or not the games are interesting, actually improve recruitment, and are worth the $.

During the convention's first three days, more than 300[50] individuals were arrested by police,[51] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[52] health-care workers and lawyer observers.[53] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[53]

It was more or less the same at 2004 RNC: people (1800 accordingly to wikipedia) were arrested, many just just for being in the wrong place. Not only reporters/lawyers/health

During the convention's first three days, more than 300[50] individuals were arrested by police,[51] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[52] health-care workers and lawyer observers.[53] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[53]

It was more or less the same at 2004 RNC: people (1800 accordingly to wikipedia) were arrested, many just just for being in the wrong place. Not only reporters/lawyers/health care volunteers were arrested but also people completely unrelated to the protests that were going about their business (delivery men, people just going/coming to/from work, etc). I thought at that point this is something realy massive and NYC will be sued to oblivion, Bush will lose a lot of popularity and maybe resign and so on. But no, nothing like that...

Maybe there were not lawsuits because no one had a case against the city. I was in NY during the RNC (on non-related business) and got to see first hand what was going on. First, the police did an awesome job. They pretty much let people do what they wanted and were there to maintain the peace. They maintained a pretty light hand. Right in front of a couple of police officers, I was spit and threatened on by a peace protester who didn't understand the irony of his actions. The police did nothing. I asked them why and they basically told me that they had bigger fish to fry. Sadly, I agreed.

I saw people block entrances to businesses, block the bus routes for delegates, hurl objects such as fake blood, urine, and dirt at delegates, try to "release" protesters that had been arrested and partake in other activities that went far beyond their right to peacefully assemble. No one can deny that their attempt was to disrupt the RNC, meaning that their goal was to strip the rights of the RNC members. Those that resorted to illegal means were arrested.

The only bystanders that I saw arrested who were at the wrong place at the wrong time were given fair warning. For example, if a bunch of protesters were blocking a bus route and a reporter was in the mix interviewing them, that reporter was also arrested for helping to block the bus route. They were given ample warning to move.

What does this have to do with the recruiting center protests? When you block a legal activity in protest, you can count on getting arrested. These people crossed the line and were no longer "peaceably assembling". They were breaking the law.

Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?

I'd say a lot of them were a bit scared off by the "Protesting the war? That's terrorist talk. Why do you hate America?" rhetoric so popular since 9/11.It seems we are again seeing an attitude that doesn't automatically paint you as a potential threat to America just becasue you don't agree with theRepublican party.

Then I realized it was mostly Republicans losing life and limb for Bush's honorless campaign. I think we're even for their flag-waving cries of "If you question the mission you don't support the troops" that I heard so often.

Occupying Irag over lies had made it harder for future US governments to convince the people of the need to go to war. This could backfire badly, should a real threat arise.

And, to put said cost into scope, you also need to know how many 'leads' said facility generates, how many turn into recruitments, and the average/median quality of the troops recruited from said center.

Think about the cost of those national 'go army' recruiting TV ads. Recruiting is expensive.

Misplaced and misused is great, makes army intelligence think there is some huge "Grassroots" protest going on. They will be going over every frame of film and recording as many number plates as they can. Looking for "leaderless resistance" types.
When the Cops came for the mall perverts,
I remained silent;
I was not a pedophile.
Then they locked up the skaters,
I remained silent;
I was not a skateboarder.
Then they came for the teens,
I did not speak out;
I was not young.
Then they came for the anti war p